Tehran no longer fazed by renewed Western accusations
By Delaram Ahmadi
Staff writer
Britain has formally accused Iran of possible involvement in a suspected plot targeting RAF Fairford, though it has yet to make detailed evidence public. Tehran has denied the allegation. Soon afterward, the foreign ministers of 29 countries, including the US, Britain, France, Germany, Canada and Australia, issued a joint statement backing Britain’s assessment and accusing Iran of orchestrating assassination plots, arson, sabotage, cyberattacks and other hostile acts against their countries and allies. The timing of these accusations and the joint statement may signal a Western push to close ranks against Iran. However, international affairs expert Afifeh Abedi told Iran Daily that such efforts are nothing new and no longer worry Tehran. She said Iran would continue to push back against such allegations while remaining prepared for any possible scenario.
IRAN DAILY: At a time when tensions between Iran and the United States are mounting and negotiations have reached a deadlock, what objectives and consequences could lie behind such statements and allegations? To what extent can these developments be viewed as part of an effort to increase political and security pressure on Iran or lay the groundwork for possible future action against the country?
ABEDI: The allegations of Iran’s involvement in the Fairford incident, the propaganda surrounding the alleged role of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps in the incident, and this joint statement can be viewed within the framework of coordinated efforts by the United States, Israel and Britain to put pressure on Iran.
Iranophobia is nothing new. Cooperation between the CIA, Mossad and MI6 against Iran has a history spanning more than five decades, dating back to before the [1979] Islamic Revolution. These allegations against Iran are not unprecedented; they are also part of ongoing efforts to prepare the political climate for further acts of aggression against the country.
In my view, Iran is no longer concerned by the publication of such allegations and has prepared itself for all possible scenarios. The high level of hostility, cooperation and coordination among the United States, Israel and Europe against Iran is also nothing new, and there is no reason for Iran to be alarmed by their coordination against it.
On the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, the NATO secretary-general also acknowledged that the European Union had directly cooperated in the recent war against Iran. Therefore, any new hostile action undertaken with their cooperation would not be unprecedented.
What diplomatic, legal and media resources can Iran draw on to respond effectively to these allegations and present its position to international public opinion? In this context, what role can international media and legal institutions play in preventing unsubstantiated accusations from becoming the basis for security and political decisions?
As a matter of course, the relevant institutions, including the Foreign Ministry, the government and the judiciary, can use Iran’s embassies, its missions to the United Nations and direct contacts with the governments that signed the statement to demand specific evidence supporting their endorsement of these allegations.
Holding briefings for diplomats from the signatory countries and requesting written, evidence-based responses regarding the allegation of Iranian involvement in the RAF Fairford incident could help prevent the repeated use of politically motivated accusations against Iran.
However, the reality is that, at a time when the International Criminal Court faces sanctions for its efforts to pursue legal proceedings over Israeli crimes, international court judges are subjected to pressure and sanctions, and human rights rapporteurs investigating Israeli crimes in Gaza and Lebanon are threatened with death, with even their families facing threats to their safety, international law cannot be expected to deliver much more.
Of course, efforts to strengthen the standing of international legal institutions should be supported, and legal mechanisms should continue to be used. But the defining logic of the current era is power. Iran must remain prepared for any form of US-Israeli or European aggression.
Could diplomatic coordination with countries aligned with Iran and the use of international organizations’ capabilities prevent a broader consensus from forming against Iran?
Iran can emphasize, within the framework of international law, the need to produce evidence, respect the jurisdiction of judicial bodies and refrain from attributing responsibility without sufficient supporting documentation.
The key point, however, is that Western countries, along with those that fear pressure from the United States, Israel and Britain and align themselves with their hostile positions toward Iran, are not acting according to sound reasoning that would allow them to be held accountable.
In this regard, while maintaining active diplomacy, Iran should pursue new political and legal initiatives with countries that do not align with the Western-Zionist axis and are critical of it. The aim should be to prevent the further erosion of international legal mechanisms.
Given Iran’s relations with countries such as Russia, China and some regional states, how much potential do these countries have to counter political campaigns against Tehran and prevent further escalation? Could diplomatic coordination with these countries, together with the use of international organizations, prevent a broader consensus from forming against Iran?
Page 8